Hounds Summary

Discussions of Sherlock Holmes stories by The Hounds of the Internet.

The Yellow Face – Hounds Summary

Ralph Edwards – Mon, 5 Dec 1994

  • How did Holmes maintain his muscularity?
  • Was Munro’s muscularity general or just in his jaw?
  • Does a ramble in the Park represent exercise?
  • Why did both Munros feel half choked and need air?
  • Are “not a difference” and “nervous, high strung” consistent?
  • What individuality shows up in shoelaces?
  • Was total muscularity confirmed?
  • Is the right-handed deduction correct?
  • Does pleasure try a man’s nerves more than work?
  • How did Effie come to know Hebron?
  • Why was there less work for Munro in the summer?
  • What does summer have to do with a springtime case?
  • What was the origin of the cottage furnishings?
  • Did Effie take the candle with her?
  • Does a heavy sleeper keep his watch under his pillow?
  • Was Effie an incompetent liar?
  • Did Effie deliberately time her visits so as to be caught?
  • Was there a curious incident of the cat in the kitchen?
  • If no letters, how did Effie hear from the nurse?
  • Did Holmes’s theory cover the child or the father?
  • Would race be shown on a death certificate?
  • Would a blackmailer demand a photograph?
  • Why did Holmes and Watson go unarmed against blackmailers?
  • Why was the cottage door unclosed?
  • Why was the child in disguise just then?
  • How did Effie support her child and the nurse?
  • Was England more tolerant than America?
  • Was Munro the type to take ten minutes to ponder?
  • Where did Munro spend the night?
  • Is “livid chalky white” the same as “livid yellow”?
  • Why didn’t Munro arrive before 3 p.m.

Chris Redmond – Fri, 15 Mar 1996

Most Sherlock Holmes stories, whatever else they may be, are exciting. The same cannot really be said of The Yellow Face. Is the author successful in using boredom and the commonplace as a background for Sherlock Holmes’s extraordinary sparkle?

Sonia Fetherston – Fri, 6 Jun 1997

As others have noted, YELL is an odd story. But I enjoy much of it! Some things to consider:

  • In the introduction to YELL Watson says that Holmes’ versatility and energy were admirable when the detective was at his wit’s end. What are some other examples of this in the canon? Does NORW qualify, where Holmes has that low point at breakfast followed by his writhing merriment when he sees the bogus fingerprint?
  • Co-incidentally, Violet Hunter was repeatedly at her “wit’s end.” She was a versatile and energetic person, too. Maybe this is another reason why Watson paired them in his mind.
  • I’m always enchanted by the page boy. We’ll let him be “Billy,” though this is a story that doesn’t specifically name him. Who else but this beautifully-drawn character could drop the word “sir” 8 times in a mere 12 lines (Doubleday edition)? And he does it so effortlessly!
  • Isn’t it possible that John Hebron is of mixed race, not 100 percent black? Isn’t that why he has “unmistakable signs upon his features of his African descent?” If this is possible, then his daughter is no more than one-quarter black, despite her dark skin.
  • We’re assured that except for an occasional encounter with cocaine, Sherlock Holmes has no vices. Is that really true?
  • YELL makes me think of Elton John. Isn’t he originally from Pinner, and doesn’t he now make his home in Atlanta?

Steve Clarkson – Fri, 21 Aug 1998

Grant Munro was a happy, prosperous man. He had a good income, a nice villa in the country, and a loving devoted wife whom he loved dearly in return. Then, suddenly, his world seems to come crashing about his ears, and he found himself discussing his most private affairs with two complete strangers — Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John H. Watson.

It all started when his wife asked for £100. He was startled, for that was quite a sum of money in those days. When he asked what it was for, his wife Effie was evasive and said she couldn’t tell him right then. But it was her money, even though she had given it all over to him when they married, and so he gave her the £100. Soon after, a vacant cottage across the street from his villa was occupied, and when he went over to offer neighbourly assistance he was rudely rebuffed.

That very night, he told his wife that the cottage was occupied. At three in the morning, he awakened to find his wife stealthily getting dressed. He pretended to be asleep and heard her go out the front door. When she returned some twenty minutes later, Grant Munro gave up all pretence of being asleep and asked her where she had gone. And for the first time in their married life, Effie lied to him.

The next day Grant Munro went for a walk to clear his thoughts. As he passed by the cottage he saw a strange, rigid, yellow face peering out at him from an upstairs window. And who should walk out of the cottage but Effie. It was only after she pleaded with him that he agreed not to go into the cottage to see who was there, but he made her promise she wouldn’t visit the cottage again. But he kept seeing the strange yellow face in the same window, and Effie did go back to the cottage again. This time he rushed into the cottage, but found it deserted. Her breach of faith caused him to leave her, and he found himself with Holmes and Watson, spilling out his unhappy story.

Holmes and Watson felt that blackmail was involved. But was there? Who or what was the creature in the window, and why was Effie Munro apparently shielding it? In a few minutes the Maître de Chasse will post his Comments and Questions, and send the Hounds into the cottage to sniff out the truth of the matter.

If those Hounds who use the Doubleday Doran version of the Canon are confused as to how this Adventure gets its name, it is understandable. In the Doubleday text, Grant Munro at first describes the face he sees at the cottage window as “…of a livid, chalky white.” Both the Strand and the Annotated give that as “…of a livid dead yellow.”  Later in the Adventure Munro alludes to the face as “…that yellow livid face,” with which the texts of the Strand and Annotated agree. Still further on, the Doubleday Doran has Munro speaking of an “unusual colour,” while the other two texts have it as “unnatural colour.” By the way, the word “livid” refers to any marked discoloration of the skin. It is derived from a Latin word which means, “to have a bluish color.”

But for the Annotated fans, both the Strand and the Doubleday Doran edition have Watson referring to MUSG as an example of a case in which Holmes erred. The Annotated cites SECO as the example. In any event, could it be said that either MUSG or SECO could be viewed as a case in which Holmes “…erred [but] the truth was still discovered?”

There are some curious things about Effie Munro. When she decided to sneak out of her conjugal bedroom to visit the creature in the cottage, she lit a candle. Why did she do that if she wanted her husband to remain asleep? She showed her husband a copy of her late husband’s death certificate, but were death certificates required in Atlanta in the early 1880’s? Why would she have a copy of the certificate if she was at all inclined to remarry, since no English suitor would have known she had been married before? And if Effie loved “Jack” as much as she professed and he believed, why did she carry a portrait of her first husband around in a locket, right up to the moment her little secret was discovered?

It seems odd that Effie would have gone to the expense of bringing her daughter and the nurse over from America. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper for her to concoct some excuse about a sick relative and go to America instead? Wouldn’t the risk of someone discovering her secret have been minimized by that approach? And did she expect to keep the little girl cooped up inside the cottage forever?

Of course, Grant Munro does some odd things, too. Keeping one’s watch under one’s pillow while sleeping is a good way to get both a stiff neck and a broken watch. When he entered the suddenly-vacated cottage he saw a full-length portrait of his wife, which he had requested only three months earlier, on the mantel. Why didn’t he notice its absence from his own house where, surely, it would have been displayed prominently?

Discover more about The Yellow Face and read the canon.

Wisteria Lodge – Hounds Summary

Ralph Edwards – Fri, 8 Apr 1994

  • Does “being of a social turn” suggest “no charm in the man”?
  • Is there a difference between “within two days” and “the next day”?
  • How does one light an endless cigarette?
  • When did Holmes write his telegram to Allan Brothers?
  • Why did Garcia travel alone? Why didn’t he take his revolver?
  • Why a cold and melancholy walk at Esher rather than take a trap?
  • Isn’t “Hynes Hynes” an even more unusual name than “Nathan Garrideb”?
  • When would Henderson encounter folks closely enough to lash at?
  • Should Henderson and/or Lopez have noticed that they were being followed by both Warner and a plain-clothes man? How did the followers both keep up with the carriage?
  • Do stout, puffy, red men climb trees?
  • Were the children also staying at the Hotel Escurial in Madrid?
  • Why could Miss Brunett not kill Henderson more readily than Garcia?
  • Wouldn’t this case have been solved without Holmes’s involvement? Are there any other such cases in the Canon?

Chris Redmond – Fri, 20 Sep 1996

In an award-winning article about Wisteria Lodge, Edward F. Clark observed that the story is poorly understood because, among other things, “we don’t read it very often” compared to the more famous and popular stories in the Canon. Are some stories, in fact, read more often than others? And if this is one of the more often neglected ones, why?

Sonia Fetherston – Fri, 12 Dec 1997

Talk about your disaster dinner parties: The host’s mind wandered, the conversation failed, the food was bad, the servant was a regular Lurch – what would Miss Manners do in a situation like this? We’ll see how John Scott Eccles handled the evening as we read our next story, The Adventure of Wisteria Lodge. My Q’s & Comments…

  • Once and for all now: Is Scott Eccles gay or straight?
  • You spend the night with a stranger in an unusual setting. When you wake up, the host and his servants have mysteriously vanished. Doesn’t WIST have its roots in the world of legend and folklore?
  • Sherlock Holmes impersonated a botanist which may or may not account for Warner’s initial notice of him. We learn in STUD that the detective’s knowledge of botany was “variable,” but is there other canonical evidence to support a serious interest in plants?
  • Isn’t the cook a little too orthodox? Can we accept ritual practices that are so exactly by-the-book?
  • A year ago I took a birdhouse painting class, a creative outlet that was supposed to help reduce stress. My very first “canvas” was a 10-inch cottage-style birdhouse that I covered with purple and blue flowery vines. My husband immediately dubbed it “Wisteria Lodge.” In February, I weatherproofed it and hung it in a tree just outside the kitchen window. Before long a feathered family made themselves at home in it. We affectionately named the male “Scott Eccles.” His mate we called “Miss Burnet.” Their surviving babies became “Garcia,” “Baynes” and “Watson.” My family had fun watching their family all summer long. The kitty next door liked watching them, too. In fact, he hung around so much we gave him the inevitable canonical nom: “The Tiger of San Pedro.”

Steve Clarkson – Fri, 19 Feb 1999

John Scott Eccles had just undergone what he termed “a most incredible and grotesque experience.” So jarring was it that he lost little time in consulting Sherlock Holmes, the explainer of the inexplicable. Yet just as Eccles was beginning to relate his story, who should visit 221B Baker Street but Inspector Gregson and another police official, looking for Eccles in connection with the mysterious and brutal death of his host of the previous evening.

After hearing Eccles’s tale of woe, Inspector Gregson was convinced that he had had nothing to do with Mr. Garcia’s death. But the circumstances surrounding that death were so bizarre that Holmes and Watson felt it necessary to visit the scene of the crime. In a few minutes, the Mâitre de Chasse will unleash the Hounds upon a scent which contains elements of despotism, voodoo, and vengeance. The trail begins in Latin America and winds through Europe before it leads to the body of a man, his head beaten in, lying in the Oxshott Common.

I sometimes feel that WIST started off like STUD may have: Too long for a short story; not long enough for a novel. For all its relative length, however, there isn’t much mystery or substance to the tale, IMHO. But I note the appearance of the redoubtable Inspector Baynes, who from all appearances is nearly the equal of the Master Detective, at least in this Adventure. Indeed, it was Baynes who learned the true identity of “Mr. Henderson” and his secretary through true detective work: checking “Henderson’s” travels back until his country of origin was revealed. Holmes did not trouble himself to do this. Baring-Gould places this Adventure as having occurred in 1890; could it be that Watson delayed publishing the story for 18 years out of a sense of embarrassment for Holmes, who was at the peak of his powers in the 1890’s?

Just the first couple of paragraphs brought several questions to mind:

  1. No dictionaries, now, how would you define “grotesque?”
  2. Is “Scott Eccles” a compound surname?
  3. Why wouldn’t a woman send a reply-paid telegram instead of appearing in person?

Gregson said that he was led to 221B by Eccles’s wire to Holmes. Was Scotland Yard in the custom of sifting through the myriad telegrams sent throughout London and beyond each day? Or, if Scotland Yard inspectors had John Scott Eccles in view at the time he sent his telegram, why didn’t they detain him on the spot, at Charing Cross Station?

Miss Burnet/Signora Durando was a governess to Don Murillo’s children. It is inconceivable that she did not speak Spanish, particularly as her late husband had Spanish as his native tongue. Why did she write the fatal note to Garcia in English?

For those among us who are conversant with voodoo rituals, what might the mummified object left behind by Murillo’s cook have been, and what did it symbolize? And for the medicos, would strong coffee rapidly overcome the effects of opium?

Miss Burnet/Signora Durando says of Don Murillo, “‘He escaped as you have just described.’” As who just described? The description of Murillo’s escape from San Pedro is related to us in the form of a mental “flashback” by Watson. It was not spoken aloud. Was Miss Burnet a psychic, a mind-reader?

Discover more about Wisteria Lodge and read the canon.

The Veiled Lodger – Hounds Summary

Ralph Edwards – Fri, 5 Aug 1994

  • At what ages and in which years was Holmes active?
  • Why did Holmes retire so early?
  • Which six years did Watson miss?
  • What did Watson do after Holmes retired?
  • Where were the case records kept?
  • Were family honor and famous forebears limited by social class?
  • If the miscreant was known, why was the warning not given personally?
  • Do any other Cases have elements as disparate as a politician, lighthouse, and trained cormorant?
  • Didn’t Watson usually change identification data?
  • Where did Watson reside in 1896?
  • Did Watson imitate Dickens with “Merrilow”?
  • Does today’s anti-smoking campaign have roots as far back as 1896?
  • How was milk dispensed in those years?
  • Is “these times” a chronic problem for landladies or an economic period?
  • Can a person who is wasting away also be described as full and voluptuous?
  • Does Abbas Parvas seem like an English place name?
  • Was Eugenia to pay for Holmes’ services?
  • Is 3 p.m. considered early afternoon?
  • When do lions roar?
  • Would a lion’s paw crack a skull?
  • How do felines attack their prey?
  • What had Allahabad to do with this case?
  • Is Montrachet appropriate for a pick-up lunch?
  • Is the broken armchair appropriate?
  • Why was the husband’s photo kept?
  • With raw meat available, was human killing likely?

Chris Redmond – Fri, 27 Oct 1995

The introduction to this tale identifies it as “one of the most terrible human tragedies.” Is it a tragedy in the classical sense, involving a fall from greatness that evokes pity and terror, or is it merely a sad story? And aren’t most of Holmes’ cases tragedies in the looser sense?

Sonia Fetherston – Fri, 17 Apr 1998

Hur-REE! Hur-REE! Hur-REE! Step right up to the Big Top for our next story, The Adventure of the Veiled Lodger. There’s a clown, a strong man, and a wild animal, but watch out for the ringmaster’s whip! My questions and comments for this tale:

  • Why did Holmes want to have a witness present during his meeting with Mrs. Ronder?
  • “No words can describe the framework of a face when the face itself is gone.” Her chin was fine, her mouth intact, and her eyes were still “beautiful.” With so much of her face unscathed, were the actual injuries really that horrible?
  • Of all the angels and archangels, cherubim and seraphim — why was Gabriel specifically singled out for comparison to Leonardo?
  • How did Victorians dispose of known hazardous materials? And should Holmes and Watson take any special precautions handling and sniffing at that blue bottle?
  • Leonardo drowned at Margate presumably while swimming near the town’s fine beach. Of interest to the Hounds, who discussed bathing cots and bathing machines a few days ago, Margate was where Benjamin Beale lived. He, of course, was the modest Quaker man who invented the bathing machine in 1753. But Margate is notable for another Sherlockian sort of reason. It was from Margate that Elizabeth Stuart embarked for the continent in 1613, after her marriage to Frederick V…the King of Bohemia!

Steve Clarkson – Fri, 18 Jun 1999

Mrs. Merrilow, a landlady, was concerned about her mysterious boarder. At night Mrs. Merrilow would hear her lodger, Eugenia Ronder, crying aloud in her sleep — terrible cries of “Murder!” and “Coward!”. Mrs. Merrilow counseled Mrs. Ronder that the clergy and the police were available to remedy whatever was bothering her, but Mrs. Ronder opted to talk with Sherlock Holmes instead. Watson mentions a case involving a politician, a lighthouse, and a trained cormorant, but this case features a circus, a lion, and a strongman.

In a few minutes, the Mâitre de Chasse will loose the Hounds on the trail of a grotesque crime that Holmes had been unable to solve when it occurred. The trail is old and cold, and the murder weapon may lie at the bottom of a deep, green pool formed in an abandoned chalk pit. The Pack will not have an easy time unraveling the mixed scents in this hunt, for more than one villain is involved.

The full title of this story is The Adventure of the Veiled Lodger, but it’s not really an “adventure” in the sense of the word that is most often used. It’s an exercise, in hindsight, involving a crime that Holmes was unable to solve when it occurred. In that respect, the plot resembles SIXN, in which Holmes also was consulted but at the time was unable to shed light on the missing Black Pearl of the Borgias. VEIL is also another instance of Holmes “commuting a felony” by shrugging off a woman’s confession of complicity in cold-blooded murder. The question boils down to this: Was Holmes justified, in this case, or any of the others, in concealing the true solution of a crime on the basis of an ethical judgment that disregards the fact that the law was broken?

VEIL is one of three stories in the Canon that have an undercurrent of adultery, the other two being CARD and RETI. In the latter cases, both the wife and her lover are slain by the aggrieved husband. The husbands in CARD and RETI, Jim Browner and Josiah Amberley, were apprehended within days and faced the penalties prescribed by law immediately. But in VEIL, the husband — a real rotter by all accounts — was murdered, and the wife and illicit lover lived on for a number of years. Eugenia Ronder was terribly disfigured but survived, and it might be said that Leonardo got off scot-free, although we don’t know whether his conscience troubled him. Is there any significance in VEIL’s deviation from the earlier “norm” set by CARD and RETI? Can all three of these stories, as well as ABBE (published in 1904), DEVI (1910), and HOUN (1902), be linked to Doyle’s advocacy for liberalization of England’s divorce laws?

Watson begins the narrative by tantalizing us with a reference to yet another unchronicled case, that of “the politician, the lighthouse, and the trained cormorant.” In mentioning this case, Watson deplores attempts to obtain his or Holmes’ records of it, and threatens to make the facts known to the public if any further attempts are made. “There is at least one reader who will understand,” he writes. Implicit in that remark is a clue that more than one person was involved. But how could Watson be sure that the person to whom his threat was directed would actually read those words? Was that person an editor who would handle his manuscript — or a literary agent, may we imagine?

Mrs. Ronder’s landlady, Mrs. Merrilow (not “Merridew of abominable memory” (EMPT) is described as “buxom,” and when she exits 221B her gait is described as “waddling.” To me, this implies more than “buxom;” it indicates obesity. Is this stereotypical description actually a portrait of a typical landlady of the time? Did Mrs. Hudson look like this?

Holmes was consulted by young Edmunds, of the Berkshire Constabulary, at the time of the incident but was unable to shed any light on it; although he was troubled by some inconsistencies that were not considered at the time of the inquest. Young Edmunds, he told Watson, subsequently was sent to Allahabad. Allahabad is a city in southern Uttar Pradesh, in India. Apparently, Edmunds didn’t decide to go to Allahabad — he was “sent.” Who might have sent him there, and why?

Discover more about The Veiled Lodger and read the canon.

The Valley of Fear – Hounds Summary

J. Randolph Cox – 18, 25 Mar 1994

Part 1 – 18 Mar 1994

  • What is the significance of the use of humor in the first chapter? Does this further the plot or establish something…or is there another reason?
  • How does Holmes’ relationship with Inspector MacDonald strengthen the reader’s belief in the role of Moriarty in this crime?
  • Why is it necessary that we not see the third chapter of the story from the point of view of Dr. Watson?
  • What classic detective story traditions are supported by the physical setting and the clues in chapters three and four? Knowing these detective traditions, as well as the canon, what inferences should we draw? Are we justified in doing so?
  • Does the friendship between Cecil Barker and Mrs. Douglas shed any light on the mystery or does it appear to be a “red herring?”
  • Explain how the Author could have created this code using Whitaker’s Almanac and create a code using a current source (not necessarily Whitaker’s) to demonstrate your answer.

Part 2 – 25 Mar 1994

  • Chapter 6 contains many conventions of Golden Age Detective Fiction. Enumerate as many as you can and indicate those incidents you consider to belong to the convention known as the “red herring.”
  • What does Holmes expect to accomplish by his taunting of Inspector MacDonald and White Mason before revealing the solution? What other case (or cases) does the denouement in Chapter 7 resemble?
  • What is gained by presenting the story of the Scowrers in third-person narrative instead of the point of view of John Douglas in conversation or interrogation?
  • How does the author establish and develop the characters of McMurdo and Boss McGinty and their roles in the drama played out in Vermissa Valley?
  • What are the incidents that help McMurdo pass the test of allegiance to the Scowrers? Do you see any significance in his claim to be from Chicago?

Chris Redmond – Fri, 6, 13 Sep 1996

  • Does “the missing dumb-bell” rank with the dog who did nothing in the nighttime for ingenuity, literary elegance, surprise, and well-deserved fame? Is there something about negative capability (the absence of the dumb-bell, the silence of the dog) that makes a clue particularly characteristic of Sherlock Holmes?
  • The great Sherlockian Bliss Austin, who owned the manuscript of The Valley of Fear, once said that Arthur Conan Doyle had written 61, not 60, great detective stories, and that “The Scowrers” could stand by itself as one of the finest detective novels ever written.
  • Was he right? And, if so, what does that say about the structural integrity of The Valley of Fear as a whole?

Sonia Fetherston – Fri, 28 Nov/5 Dec  1997

Whew! Now that I’m stuffed with Thanksgiving dinner, I’m looking for my dumbbells to start working off some of that meal. Trouble is, I can only find one of them…Turning now to the first half of The Valley of Fear, here are this week’s Q’s and Comments:

  • Marriage is a motif in this story, but Moriarty is pointedly identified in VALL as unmarried. Were he the marrying kind, what sort of woman would Moriarty look for? Is there a woman anywhere in the canon who would make a good wife for the professor?
  • Nowadays all parties associated with a sensational criminal case sign their own lucrative book deals. In VALL, White Mason merely hoped for a kind mention in one of Watson’s forthcoming accounts. Was he serious, or joking, or what? If White Mason were to write his own book about this particular case, what would the title be?
  • A tattoo isn’t a body’s only identifying characteristic. Neither is a face. How is it possible that Ames and others — who knew Douglas so well — concluded without question that the dead man was the master of Birlstone?
  • “Man, it’s witchcraft,” Inspector MacDonald exclaimed when he saw Porlock’s message. His reference was to Holmes having the words “Douglas” and “Birlstone” already before him, but the Scotland Yard man could just as easily have been commenting on Porlock’s coded numbers. MacDonald was an Aberdonian, and Aberdeen is to Great Britain what Salem, Massachusetts is to Americans — the site of infamous witchcraft trials and the place where many supposed witches were put to death. To protect themselves against witches, even as late as our own century, many Aberdonians carried numerical charms. Some of those charms were very simple, like this example, a magic square in which the lines all equal 18:

5 10 3

4  6  8

9  2  7

  • The more complex charms look an awful lot like the number groupings in Porlock’s note. And a MacDonald from Aberdeen would know that “Douglas” and “Birl” are, of course, Scottish words.

All aboard! The train for Vermissa Valley is about to leave the station. Take that seat over there, next to the fresh-complexioned man with the firm jaw. This weekend’s questions and comments as we read The Valley of Fear (Part 2 – The Scowrers):

  • What is there to like about the Freemen? Does the group have any redeeming social value?
  • McMurdo was “glib enough” when questioned by the Freemen. But how come McGinty doesn’t verify McMurdo’s background, or check him out a lot more thoroughly before giving the newcomer some jobs to do?
  • I just appointed you to be Granada’s casting director, and we’re finally going to film VALL. Who will you cast to play the roles of McGinty, McMurdo, and Baldwin?
  • That “Dear me, Mr. Holmes” note…we can pretty much guess who wrote it, but why did he write it?
  • McMurdo used the endearment “acushla” when speaking to his beloved Ettie. It’s a term that frustrates Gaelic translators, who, as footnoted so well by the Oxford editors, variously define the word as “diarrhea” or “artery.” I have another theory. Ettie was German (her nationality changed to Swedish in British editions for political reasons), and the ardent Irishman was actually trying to impress her by speaking a few words in her own language. Watson and the literary agent, not surprisingly, garbled it up. Anyhow, I propose that the prefix “acu” is in reality the German “Ach, du,” meaning “Oh, you,” just like the playground song, “Ach, du lieber Augustin.” If we accept “ach, du” then all that’s left is determining the balance of the word, “shla.” There are several possibilities. “Ach, du schlank!” roughly translates as “Oh, you svelte creature!” which is certainly an endearment many women would be thrilled to hear. “Ach, du schlau!” means something like “Oh, you sneak!” a strange appellation from one lover to another, unless Ettie was herself a Pinkerton collaborator…a highly intriguing plot twist, nicht wahr? My own choice, however, is “Ach, du Schlag!” or “Oh, you little dollop of whipped cream!” It’s a term of endearment — don’t you agree? — that’s eminently suited to such a sweet young girl.

Steve Clarkson – Fri, 12 Feb 1999

It was frustrating. Sherlock Holmes had received a coded message from a person who was highly placed in the criminal organization of Professor James Moriarty. He knew that this person, Fred Porlock, only wrote to him when something major was about to happen. But Porlock had been surprised by Moriarty in the act of sending the key to the code in a separate message, and so Holmes was left with a cryptic message and seemingly no way to decipher it.

Using his well-known deductive methods, Holmes managed to “crack” the code and learned that danger was impending for someone named “Douglas” who lived at Birlstone Manor, not too far from Tunbridge Wells. Sure enough, just as he had finished decoding the message, Inspector Alex MacDonald of Scotland Yard arrived with some disturbing news: Mr. Jack Douglas of Birlstone Manor had been horribly murdered during the preceding night.

In a few minutes, the Mâitre de Chasse will sound the call that will loose the Hounds upon a scent which has its origins a dozen years or more before the murder of Jack Douglas. The trail leads from the coal and iron mines of Pennsylvania through the gold fields of California and ultimately to a moated manor house located just southeast of London, and a man who wielded a sawed-off shotgun. It is an intricate trail, full of false scents such as an apparent intrigue between the dead man’s wife and his best friend, but the real key to the mystery lies underwater. The Mâitre hopes that his Hounds know how to swim, or at least are willing to wade.

Well, novels seem to be the order of the day. As with HOUN, I am allowing only one week for VALL. I am particularly fond of this Adventure because, among other reasons, the repartee between Holmes and Watson at the beginning of the story represents, to my mind, the best “Gotcha!” Watson ever perpetrated upon Holmes. Another reason is that, like STUD, this Adventure has roots in American history: The “Scowrers” are the literary counterparts of the “Molly Maguires” who terrorized the Pennsylvania coal fields in the 1870s; and “Birdy Edwards” had a real-life origin in the form of one James McParlan, a Pinkerton operative who infiltrated the Molly Maguires and brought many of their leaders before the bar of justice.

As with STUD, this story is divided by a long flashback narrative which explains the background leading up to Ted Baldwin’s attempt on “Jack Douglas’s” life in the moated manor of Birlstone. I do not propose to raise questions about the flashback portion since it does not contain any appearance by Holmes. But I do have a couple of questions about the opening segment:

  • Fred Porlock decided not to send Holmes the key to his cipher message after being surprised by Moriarty. Yet he sent an explanatory note to Holmes anyway. Why didn’t he simply enclose the cipher key with it, since his risk in sending the note was equal to that of sending the key?
  • Speaking of the cipher message, wouldn’t it be evident to Holmes that given the cipher’s provenance, something bad was in store for a “Douglas” in or near “Birlstone?” Did Holmes necessarily need to go to the trouble of reasoning out the key to the cipher? And how did Holmes manage to count the words in column two of page 534 of Whitaker’s Almanac with such celerity? For that matter, how long must it have taken Porlock to locate a single column of print which contained the desired words? Could this means of sending cipher messages have been prearranged between Holmes and Porlock, with Holmes’s logical tour de force being a pretense for Watson’s benefit, as a way of poking more fun at Watson for the wisecrack about “unknown to the public?” (“One more coruscation, my dear Watson!”)

I wonder who, what, or where was Portalis?

  • Cecil Barker said that Douglas was never without his revolver but had left it in his bedroom the night of the attack upon him. Wouldn’t “making the rounds” of Birlstone have been a time when he was most likely to have his gun close at hand, particularly since (as we learn later) he had recently seen his nemesis in the neighborhood?
  • As a part of his scheme to induce Barker to reveal his complicity, Holmes dictated a note to Barker indicating an intent to drain the moat. Why would Holmes address the note to Barker, who had no sway over Birlstone, and not to Ivy Douglas, who did? Might not Barker have rightly become suspicious that something was afoot when the note was addressed to him?
  • Lastly, wasn’t it unusual for Ivy Douglas, an Englishwoman bred and born, to address Barker as “Cecil?”

Discover more about The Valley of Fear and read the canon.

The Man with the Twisted Lip – Hounds Summary

Ralph Edwards – Fri, 21 Oct 1994

  • Did Whitney recover?
  • Does an addict retain friends?
  • Why “You’ll have to go out?”
  • What can you surmise about Watson’s home?
  • Is it customary to drink water with wine?
  • Is James the butler, child or dog?
  • How did Kate know the den’s name and location?
  • Why did Watson promise to send (rather than bring) Whitney home?
  • What is a slop shop?
  • Why a brazier in June?
  • Is holding one’s breath effective?
  • Did “skirt” enhance the theory that Watson was a woman?
  • What were “all the other little weaknesses?”
  • If there was no fog, what caused the golden tunnels of light?
  • Where did Boone get his meals?
  • When were the bricks bought?
  • Was Mrs. St. Clair a fainting woman?
  • Was Mrs. St. Clair making a play for Holmes?
  • Why, in England, did the “dollar” win at last?
  • Where were the coins exchanged?
  • Did the begging arrests result in overnight detention?
  • Would there be no prosecution for fraudulent begging?
  • Did Holmes collect a fee for this case? If so, what did he tell his client, Mrs. St. Clair?

Chris Redmond – Fri, 26 Jan 1996

At least four of the sixty Sherlock Holmes stories have titles that refer to distorted or concealed faces — five if one counts the facial marking that gave Silver Blaze his name. Is that only to be expected in detective stories, given the connection between masks and criminality, or is some kind of obsession revealing itself?

Steve Clarkson – Fri, 3 Jul 1998

A respected businessman, husband, and father is missing. The last person to have seen him was his wife, who saw him in the upstairs window of an opium den. He was never known to have partaken of opium or to have frequented that part of town. His suspected killer is a powerfully-built cripple with a hideous scar on his face that writhes his upper lip away from his teeth. The businessman’s body is nowhere to be found, but his clothing, or most of it, is found hidden in the room where he was last seen. There is a bloodstain on the window overlooking the turgid Thames River, and then at full high tide. When the tide recedes his coat is found, pockets stuffed with small change, but there is no sign of his body. This is the riddle that Holmes was called to solve by the businessman’s attractive wife.

This is the riddle that Holmes was called to solve by the businessman’s attractive wife. In a few minutes, the Mâitre de Chasse will sound the Hunting Horn to mark the beginning of the chase which will solve other riddles presented in this Adventure.

In REIG, Holmes says that he never makes assumptions, and yet in TWIS he must have made a series of them, beginning with the assumption that Mrs. St. Clair had indeed seen her husband in the window of the Bar of Gold. He made another assumption when he gracefully accepted Mrs. St. Clair’s assertion that the handwritten note she had received was indeed authored by her husband. There are further assumptions which flow from these if any Hounds care to trace them.

One of the premises of TWIS is that a capable beggar could make quite a decent living at his “trade.” Neville St. Clair as Hugh Boone did just that, it seems. But his story raises questions, some of them not at all related to begging, which need answering. For example, why did Kate marry Isa Whitney when she knew him to be an opium addict since his days at college?

To the best of my knowledge, this is the only Adventure in which Holmes drives a horsedrawn vehicle. We are told that the dog-cart was “flying” along and that Holmes “lit his pipe” when he came out of his silent meditation. Is it possible to drive a dog-cart and still be able to light a pipe while moving at a smart clip? The original driver of the dog-cart, John, was left on foot, alone, in the dead of night in some of the vilest and meanest streets of East London. Why could Holmes not have let him come along at least until he could be dropped off in a more respectable part of town?

In a different vein, Neville St. Clair said of his decision to beg professionally for a living, “It was a long fight between my pride and the money, but the dollars won at last…” Why would he, a Victorian gentleman, speak of “dollars” when all his life he had dealt with pounds and pence?

For the thespians among us: How does one go about making “a good scar” that will withstand the tugs and pulls of facial muscles while speaking, be strong enough to hold the upper lip in a “perpetual snarl,” and yet be water-soluble?

For the barristers among us: Holmes says that Hugh Boone “pretended to a small trade in wax vestas” in order to be protected from the laws against begging. Later, Holmes asks, “But what was a fine to him?” The implication there is that Boone had nevertheless been arrested on more than one occasion, but what would have been the basis for the arrests if Boone was operating in a technically legal fashion?

And since it’s bound to arise in the week’s discussion anyhow, was Mrs. St. Clair glad to see Watson when he arrived in company with Holmes? Did she have hopes that Holmes was bringing her husband back with him when she set out a cold supper for two while she was waiting? And why did Holmes involve the long-suffering Watson in this case in the first place? Surely, he took a calculated risk in revealing his true identity to Watson right there in the vile opium den where his natural enemies, or rather his natural prey, were all about him. If he had wanted Watson along, wouldn’t he have wired him in advance rather than risk detection on the spur of the moment? Did he bring Watson along to give him some breathing room from the alluring Mrs. St. Clair and her mousseline de soie?

Discover more about The Man with the Twisted Lip and read the canon.

The Three Students – Hounds Summary

Ralph Edwards – Fri, 28 Apr 1995

  • Why not Oxford or Cambridge?
  • Are English Charters a giveaway or a false clue?
  • What common interest did Holmes and Watson share with a Greek tutor and lecturer?
  • Did Soames pay for the consultation?
  • Would the police have taken the case?
  • What indicated the passage was in Greek? In English?
  • Why a large knife?
  • Did the evidence suggest a muscular suspect?
  • Was the bedroom window an escape path?
  • Was competing for the scholarship compulsory?
  • Was there any reason for the reputation of Indians to be quiet and inscrutable?
  • Would an idler worry about a scholarship test?
  • If the tea tray prevented locking the door, how was the door unlocked?
  • When had the students had their evening meal?
  • Why only three suspects?
  • Was the printer or his delivery man known to the students?
  • Did Ras return and leave before Gilchrist arrived?
  • What made the proofs identifiable at a distance when seen through a window?
  • Why such sharp spikes?
  • Does one look in to ask a question without knocking and being invited in?

Chris Redmond – Thu, 18 Jul 1996

It isn’t Papa Bear, and it isn’t Mama Bear, so it must be door number 3 — isn’t there something just a little too pat, too artificial, about a mystery in which Holmes must choose one of precisely three suspects in a carefully confined area?

Sonia Fetherston – Fri, 10 Oct 1997

Wipe those muddy shoes before you come in to read our next story, The Adventure of the Three Students! Some questions and comments to ponder:

  • Given the fact that no harm was ultimately done, doesn’t Watson go way, way overboard with his discretion disclaimers? Put another way, was the “scandal” in this story really all that “painful?”
  • Some prominent scholars contend that 3STU was a hoax perpetrated by Soames and Gilchrist. One even claimed that Watson was in on the joke, which was designed to help Holmes overcome depression and boredom — a combination which could lead to further cocaine abuse. What do you think?
  • Holmes pretended to study the “curious pieces of medieval domestic architecture” to gain entry to two of the students’ rooms. What architectural features distinguish medieval interiors?
  • Attention African historians! If we accept Baring Gould’s chronology, and this story took place in early April 1895, what might the next four years (pre-Boer War) hold for the guilty man?
  • Holmes correctly deduced the Faber Company pencil shavings. Faber is still around, and many of us regularly use their products. With all the attention paid to the German firm, however, it’s easy to overlook the fact that England was also a major producer of pencils. Next time you’re in the Keswick area, stop in at the Cumberland Pencil Museum, celebrating the considerable local pencil industry — in business for 450 years, since the days of Queen Elizabeth I. Don’t want to travel all the way to the Lake District? Then pop a videotape of Granada’s “Lady Frances Carfax” into your VCR; that episode was filmed a stone’s throw from the Cumberland Pencil Museum.

Steve Clarkson – Fri, 1 Jan 1999

Sherlock Holmes was researching early English charters at a major university when Mr. Hilton Soames, a tutor and lecturer in the Greek language, dropped by to present an unusual problem to him. Holmes was not of a mind to entertain trivial matters such as apparent cheating on a scholarship examination, but he rather ungraciously agreed to look into the matter.
The problem was this: Soames had been proofreading his portion of an examination for the Fortescue Scholarship after the galley proofs were returned by the printer. He stepped out for a spot of tea and returned about an hour later to find that someone had entered his rooms and apparently had copied some or all of the proofs. There were only three persons taking that portion of the Fortescue examination: a young athlete named Gilchrist; an inscrutable native of India named Daulat Ras; and a rakehell young student named Miles McLaren. One of these men must have intruded and copied the examination in Greek; no one else would have had any interest in the matter. The question is, which one?

In a few minutes, the Mâitre de Chasse will summon the Hounds to take up the scent of a problem which threatened to engulf a great university in scandal. It is a thin scent, with several twists and turns that include a fainting servant named Bannister. It is not a great leap of faith for the Mâitre to believe that the Hounds will hurdle the difficulties, however.

St. Luke is reputed to have been a Greek physician who hailed from Antioch (now located in Turkey). There are parallels between “Greek,” which Soames taught, and “physician,” which was Watson’s profession. Could there be a link also between “Antioch” and the great university where this Adventure takes place?

Young Gilchrist was poor and would have wanted very much to win the Fortescue Scholarship to further his education. Might he have mentioned this to Bannister, who then sought to help his young master by leaving the key in Soames’ door when he knew that the tutor was not in his rooms?

Soames’ portion of the Fortescue Scholarship consisted of half a chapter of Thucydides. The passage of Thucydides was sent to a printer for replication, and the printer would have had to typeset the galley proofs in Greek characters. Did printers know Greek in those days?

In any case, Soames had not finished proofreading the printer’s galleys by 4:30 of the afternoon before the Examination. He discovered shortly after 5:30 that the proofs had been tampered with. That same evening he called upon Holmes and Watson (who seemed to be better acquainted with Soames than Holmes was). The resulting investigation ended shortly before 9:00, with Soames protesting to Holmes that the matter must be resolved that evening so that the Examination could go forward on the morrow as scheduled. Even if Holmes had so obliged Soames, would there have remained enough time to finish proofreading the papers, deliver them to the printer first thing in the morning, have any necessary corrections made, and still be able to start the Fortescue Examination on time?

I have sometimes wondered how Gilchrist made the long jump from being a university student to a commissioned member of the Rhodesian Police Force. What would his qualifications for the latter position have been? When did he apply for the position, and why did he apply if he was so interested in continuing his education that he would cheat to win a scholarship? It sounds to me as though he was considering “getting out of Dodge” before the specter of the Fortescue loomed on the immediate horizon.

Discover more about The Three Students and read the canon.

The Three Garridebs – Hounds Summary

Ralph Edwards – Fri, 8 Jul 1994

  • Would a knighthood have hampered Holmes in his work?
  • Did Watson suggest that the offer of a knighthood was attempted royal bribery?
  • Did the chairs at 221B make a bed preferable, or was it a new mattress?
  • Does Garrideb as a name suggest any nationality?
  • Were directories, other than telephone, available?
  • Why are initials rather than first names common in British (and Canadian) phone books?
  • Did Holmes deduce any personality from the responsive eyes?
  • Would a recently arrived person normally encounter pictures of Holmes?
  • What other business could have kept John Garrideb from finding Nathan promptly?
  • Was being clean-shaven reflective of circumstances or only of national style?
  • Should Watson have thought a 44-year-old to be quite a young man?
  • When does twilight occur in London in the latter part of June?
  • Why did Nathan tell John of the 6 p.m. visit when asked not to?
  • Why would cataloging take so long with items so well labeled and classified?
  • Why didn’t Holmes expect Nathan to tell John of his plans?
  • Were house agents apt to have evening hours?
  • Did Evans find building political influence impossible in England?
  • Should Watson have fired his revolver?
  • Why weren’t the owner, house agents or Mrs. Saunders curious about a sealed-off basement room?
  • Did Evans find entering through the basement impractical during his six or more months of freedom?
  • If he was so well supplied with funds, why did Prescott take a card game so seriously?
  • If they were so perfect, how did the Yard learn about the counterfeit notes?
  • What is a bolt-hole?
  • Why did Holmes have Watson make his telephone calls?

Chris Redmond – Sat, 21 Oct 1995

This tale has been recognized as sharing the plot of The Red-Headed League and The Stock-Broker’s Clerk. If indeed the plot is strong enough to be employed three times, which story makes the best use of it, and why?

Sonia Fetherston – Fri, 20 Mar 1998

It could be a comedy, or it could be a tragedy, or it could simply be the next story we peruse: The Adventure of the Three Garridebs. My weekly questions and comments as we begin the weekend:

  • Holmes refused the king’s offer of a knighthood. Do you think he would have accepted a title had one been offered by
  • Queen Victoria, during her reign?
  • Nathan Garrideb is a caricature of the eccentric Englishman. Is this particular caricature affectionate or ridiculous?
  • Wasn’t Evans’ “fatal flaw” simply that he’s not a Brit?
  • Notice all the bird imagery? How come it’s there; what does it add to this story?
  • Alexander Hamilton Garrideb was supposed to be an American with a fabulous bequest. The “Alexander Hamilton” part of his name was chosen after the man who was the United States Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington. The name helped lend credibility to Evans’ story. But people sometimes forget that Alexander Hamilton —  the brilliant man who championed the systematic refunding and retirement of the US national debt — had insufficient funds to cover his own personal liabilities when he died. After his death, Hamilton’s friends charitably chipped in about $80,000 to pay off his obligations. Most of Hamilton’s own property ended up being sold off at auction to settle other bills and to provide for his impoverished widow and children. Biographer Robert A. Hendrickson notes that for Hamilton’s family “it was a mortifying sort of bankruptcy.” A far cry from A. H. Garrideb’s mythic millions.

Steve Clarkson – Fri, 21 May 1999

It was a whimsical thing that brought Holmes out of his bed, where he had stayed for the past several days. Not much of a challenge, on the surface — “Find a male adult named ‘Garrideb.’” Actually, three adult males with this improbable surname were required, but two were already at hand. All that stood between these two and a one-third share of fifteen million dollars was the lack of a third namesake, or so attorney John Garrideb’s story ran.

In a few minutes, the Mâitre de Chasse will sound the great hunting-horn and follow the Hounds in pursuit of a wily fox. This fox is not an ordinary one — he is a known killer. The trail will lead from Topeka, Kansas to the London home of an eccentric collector of all kinds of artifacts and at the end, even the redoubtable Watson will fall wounded by the quarry.

“Why,” said Nathan Garrideb, “I shall be the Hans Sloane of my age!” I fear that not everyone knows about Sir Hans Sloane (1660-1753), “The Great Collector” whose botanical and entymological specimens are housed in Britain’s Natural History Museum to this day. Sir Hans’ tastes and acquisitions were as far-ranging as his intellectual curiosity could take him, and in his time, he contributed mightily to mankind’s knowledge of the natural sciences. There is another Sherlockian connection to Sir Hans: “The Hans Sloane of My Age” was the Irregular Investiture of the late, beloved John Bennett Shaw.

This week’s story is a brief one as the adventures go, and it is a story in which there are no winners save perhaps the much-maligned C.I.D. of the London police force. Consider: Holmes got no fee; Watson was wounded (albeit superficially); “John Garrideb” a.k.a. Killer Evans went back to prison; and poor old Nathan Garrideb was consigned to a nursing home. With respect to the latter, a person with such catholic tastes and inquisitive mind surely deserved a more kindly fate.

In the second paragraph of the story, Watson casually informs us that Holmes had refused a knighthood for unspecified (but we can guess) services, ostensibly to the Crown. While we understand that Holmes is an intensely private person, such a declination would have been a rebuff to the Sovereign, who at this time was Edward VII. Would Holmes have refused the Honours List had the ruler been Victoria, the gracious lady whose initials adorned the wall at 221B?

Our introduction to “Mr. John Garrideb, Counsellor at Law” clearly gives the impression that this is an intelligent, imaginative person; someone to be reckoned with. Later on, Holmes referred to him as “clever”. But how intelligent, how clever could he be to have fallen prey to what were obviously trap questions posed by Holmes? And couldn’t he have devised a simpler scheme to inveigle Nathan Garrideb away from his “museum”? News of a well-preserved hominid fossil on Piltdown Commons, for example, or a fine example of a Syracusan coin on sale for a pittance in Land’s End? The more complex a scheme, the more parts of it there are to come undone, and Killer Evans’s plan unraveled within minutes of his meeting with Holmes.

Do we dare suppose that Holmes would have killed Evans had Watson been fatally wounded? Does this fit with what we know of the character of the Master Detective? Is it consistent with his action when he saw Watson reel after being shot by Evans — crashing his revolver down on Evans’ head instead of shooting him? Could he have done in cold blood what he did not do in hot blood?

Why did Watson say that “the counterfeiter stands in a class by himself as a public danger”? Granted that counterfeiting is a felony, in what way does it endanger the public? And what happened to the £200,000 in Prescott’s counterfeit bills? I note that the Yard was happy to discover his printing apparatus, but there was no further mention of the notes Prescott had already printed. Could it be that Holmes and Watson helped themselves before alerting the authorities?

Discover more about The Three Garridebs and read the canon.

The Problem of Thor Bridge – Hounds Summary

Ralph Edwards – Fri, 15 Jul 1994

  • Were safety deposit boxes available?
  • Can you suggest solutions to the Phillimore and Alicia cases?
  • In what language is Isadora masculine?
  • How large was the matchbox?
  • Have remarkable worms since become known to science?
  • Was rationing his output beneficial to Watson’s royalties?
  • Isn’t wild weather stimulating?
  • Had Watson always roomed on an upper floor?
  • Why did Holmes consider the Family Herald an excellent periodical?
  • Were egg timers available?
  • In what ways might Watson have changed the identity and background of Gibson to provide privacy?
  • What would an effective governess have done about a pesky fly?
  • At what age is a woman past her prime?
  • Would a mistress consent to a half-mile walk requested by her employer?
  • What were the historic English states?
  • Why didn’t Holmes ask Bates for his opinion of Miss Dunbar?
  • Did the American market for the Canon require a comparison to a prominent American?
  • Why did Gibson refer to a surgeon rather than a doctor or physician?
  • How does a woman demonstrate her tropical nature?
  • Was Holmes prejudiced against the rich?
  • Shouldn’t Holmes have known the problems of bureaucracy and getting a pass?
  • How many “wonder women” are in the Canon?
  • Must it have been a moonlit night?
  • What constitutes a first-class carriage?
  • Was Maria standing when she shot herself?
  • Did Miss Dunbar return to her work as a governess?

Chris Redmond – Fri, 22 Sep 1995

Neil Gibson is probably the richest of all Holmes’ clients. Is it significant — either to the plot of Thor Bridge or to the readers of The Case Book of Sherlock Holmes in general — that he is an American?

Sonia Fetherston – Fri, 27 Mar 1998

One woman lies dead, another is in jail, and a grumpy American millionaire may be able to provide some clues. We move to The Problem of Thor Bridge. My questions and comments:

  • Isn’t Grace Dunbar just another Violet? There’s absolutely nothing distinctive about her.
  • Why is Bates, that disgruntled sneak, such a credible witness?
  • Who is a better judge of Neil Gibson’s personality — Grace or Sherlock Holmes?
  • Wouldn’t the string float? Or, at least, wouldn’t it be visible just under the surface of the shallow lake for a time, until it became really waterlogged?
  • The chipped parapet on Thor Bridge captured Holmes’ attention. “It took some violence to do that…Yes, it was a hard knock” the detective said, striking the stonework with his cane. The chip is reminiscent of one of the numerous legends told of the Norse god of the sky, Thor, for whom the bridge was named. As the story goes, the giant Hrungnir showed up at a banquet in Asgard, home of the gods. Hrungnir bellowed that he would destroy the gods and carry off Thor’s wife, Sif. Thor hated giants anyway, but this was simply too much; he brandished his mighty hammer, “Mjollnir,” and challenged Hrungnir to a duel. Hrungnir pulled out his own weapon, a huge whetstone, which he hurled at the god. With a single blow, Thor’s hammer shattered the whetstone into many pieces. Some of the airborne chunks killed the giant. One fragment, a chip, flew toward Thor and embedded itself in his forehead, remaining there. I leave the velocity and trajectory calculations to mathematicians. For myself, I can’t help but wonder if it’s possible that the chip from the bridge parapet flew through the air and lodged itself in Maria’s hair or clothing.

Steve Clarkson – Fri, 28 May 1999

Sherlock Holmes was expecting a visit from Mr. J. Neil Gibson, a former United States Senator and the world’s wealthiest man. Mr. Gibson’s wife had been found shot to death at the Gibsons’ palatial estate in Hampshire. The family’s governess, Miss Grace Dunbar, was being held in connection with the killing. Mr. Gibson was seeking Holmes’ help in proving Miss Dunbar innocent.

While Holmes was filling Watson in on some of the details of the case, there was an unexpected visitor in the form of Mr. Marlow Bates, the manager of Mr. Gibson’s estate. Mr. Bates, obviously frightened by the prospect of his employer’s imminent visit to 221B, hurriedly related that Mr. Gibson had been most cruel towards his late wife, and then ran out of the room before Mr. Gibson’s arrival. Shortly thereafter the formidable Mr. Gibson arrived, and after some angry disputation with Holmes, Gibson confessed that he had intentions toward Miss Dunbar that were less than honourable.

In a few minutes, the Mâitre de Chasse will sound his hunting horn and set the Hounds on the trail of a complicated relationship and a “murder” that is not as cut-and-dried as it seems. He hopes that the Pack will be able to rescue Miss Dunbar from the intrigue surrounding yet another dysfunctional household.

I never read this story without reflecting on how little some things change over time. Mr. J. Neil Gibson might be any one of several contemporary men of wealth and influence. Holmes’ remark, “Some of you rich men have to be taught that all the world cannot be bribed into condoning your offenses” is as true today as it was a hundred years ago.

Watson says of the notes on unchronicled cases kept in the fabled dispatch-box, “Some, and not the least interesting, were complete failures, and as such will hardly bear narrating, since no final explanation is forthcoming.” In view of the fact that Watson published such cases as FIVE and YELL, which could be called “failures”, why did he withhold these others from the public? After making the above observation, Watson proceeds to tell us about three other “failures.” Was Doyle laying the groundwork for possible future stories as he did in the opening paragraph of FINA, in which Watson mentions NAVA?

Holmes mocks Watson by saying, “I am getting into your involved habit, Watson, of telling a story backward.” What story did Watson relate backward? And Holmes describes Gibson as “the greatest financial power in the world.” More power than the Bank of England or the United States Treasury? How can a man, however wealthy, “make or break” a community, a city, or a nation?

Was the injection of the persona of Mr. Marlow Bates really necessary to this story? What real purpose does he serve in setting the stage that a few more facts about J. Neil Gibson’s character brought out in Holmes’ prolegomenous monologue to Watson would not have provided equally well? Bates rushes in, blurts out a brief statement to the effect that Gibson is a ba-a-a-d man, and rushes out again. Unlike his counterpart John Mason in SHOS, Marlow Bates is never to be seen more in this adventure. Was Bates a red herring, drawn in front of the reader to generate a sense of pity for Mrs. Gibson (who proves to be not very likable in the final analysis)?

It seems to me that Miss Dunbar’s note, “I will be at Thor Bridge at nine o’clock” can only be a response to a request that she be at that place, at that hour. She didn’t write, for example, “Meet me at Thor Bridge at nine o’clock.” Is the actual wording of her note capable of any interpretation other than that it was a response, not a request?

Finally, what “permits” were necessary for someone to visit a prisoner?

Discover more about Thor Bridge and read the canon.

The Sussex Vampire – Hounds Summary

Ralph Edwards – Fri, 1 Jul 1994

  • What features of the note required careful reading?
  • Has Watson forgotten Holmes’ laughter in BLUE, SCAN, etc?
  • What relationship is there between tea, nitrates, and machinery assessment?
  • Should Holmes have also looked under “B” (for vampire bats)?
  • Do Peruvians have an alien religion?
  • Do smart households permit crippling accidents, a deceased wife, and poisoned arrows?
  • Why didn’t Dolores share watching the baby?
  • Did Rugby teams use only local players?
  • Why doesn’t Watson disclose the baby’s name?
  • Why didn’t Holmes write his own telegram?
  • Did Jack attack the baby only twice?
  • Does being crippled develop the mind?
  • Did towns like Lamberley always have an inn?
  • Why a three-month delay between the attack on the dog and on the baby?
  • Can mental and nervous excitement elevate body temperature?
  • Were the missing arrows in the quiver ever found?
  • If Mrs. Ferguson had told Mrs. Mason, why did Mrs. Mason tell a different story to Mr. Ferguson?
  • Should Holmes’s final letter have referenced “sirs” instead of “sir”?

Chris Redmond – Fri, 13 Oct 1995

This tale seems to be unique in presenting a child as the criminal. Does it, together with the few other appearances of children in the Canon, suggest that the author held a less than rosy view of childhood and in fact subscribed to the doctrine of original sin?

Sonia Fetherston – Fri, 13 Mar 1998

In honor of our next story, I pledge to roll up my sleeve and donate a pint of blood at my local Red Cross. I encourage fellow Hounds to consider – shameless plug for a good cause! — making a contribution at your own local blood bank, too. Who knows? The life you save might be another Sherlockian’s. 😉 Now let’s enjoy The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire.
This weekend’s questions and comments:

  • Here’s a love triangle: the story of a man, his wife, and her jealous rival. By the story’s end, are there clear winners and losers among the threesome?
  • Vampires are called “the undead.” Is it over the top to say Jacky’s mother is sort of “undead” herself?
  • “I think a year at sea would be my prescription…” Aw, come on! What would an English jury give the offender?
  • Does Holmes have any other client, anywhere else in the canon, who is as excruciatingly bashful about his problem as is Bob Ferguson?
  • If this story took place in our day and age, Bob Ferguson wouldn’t need an attorney or a detective. He could call on the services of a very helpful agency, “The Vampire Research Center,” founded in Elmhurst, New York. (There is also a Vampire Information Exchange, a Vampire Studies Society, and a Count Dracula Fan Club — all of which publish informative journals). “Vampirologist” Stephen Kaplan created the Vampire Research Center in order to study modern-day vampires and their victims. He developed a questionnaire to collect information from persons who report vampire attacks: Where did the attack occur, when and to whom? Were there witnesses? What did the vampire look like? Describe the wound. Did the victim go to a doctor, and if so what did the doctor say? Did the victim go to the police, and if so what did they say? And so on. People who think they themselves are vampires get another questionnaire: Why do you think you’re a vampire? How long have you been one? Describe your first blood-drinking experience. What does blood taste like? Do you prefer it chilled or warm? Etc. Etc. Etc. The questions get more gross as they go on. The V.R.C. also offers dental exams to observe any “unusual characteristics” of the teeth. Dear me. I think I’ll stock up on turtlenecks and stay in at night…

Steve Clarkson – Fri, 14 May 1999

When faced with an inquiry about vampires, Sherlock Holmes turned to his good old index for information on the subject, but found only what he called “rubbish”. “No ghosts need apply,” he told Watson. But how was he to deal with the situation of a man who claimed that he had caught his South American wife sucking blood from their infant son?

In a few minutes, the Mâitre de Chasse will present the Hounds with his observations and questions on a case which involves South American weapons in a Sussex household, sibling rivalry, and a paralyzed pet. He hopes that like Vlad Tepes — known as “Dracul” to the many who feared him — the Pack will go for the jugular in this case.

This story begins with Holmes going through one of his massive and omnipresent scrapbooks. What is startling is his filing technique. “Vittoria”, “Vanderbilt,” and “Vampires” filed under “V,” yes. But “Voyage of the *Gloria Scott,*” “Victor Lynch,” and “Venomous lizard, or gila”? This is not filing alphabetically, it’s a mnemonic system of some kind. And if the material about vampires contained in volume “V” was “rubbish”, why did he bother to file it in the first place?

In any event, this is not the only adventure in which a child gives Holmes insight into the solution of a case. I refer, of course, to young Edward Rucastle in COPP, who reflected his father’s dark side faithfully. There aren’t many children mentioned in the Canon; only about two dozen are named (although many more appear ephemerally). It is predictable that Holmes would have developed the art of detection to recognize the importance and relevance of child psychology long before the official forces twigged to its significance.

How would lawyers become involved with the assessment of machinery, and what does the assessment of machinery have to do with tea brokering? And what does the importation of nitrates have to do with either machinery or tea? It sounds as though Ferguson did a little hopscotching in his choices of careers, doesn’t it?

In his letter to Holmes, Ferguson writes of his Peruvian wife’s “alien religion.” What would that have been — Catholic? Incan? And after Ferguson’s revelation that his wife had assaulted her stepson Jacky on two occasions, Holmes says, “Well, that is not unknown among stepmothers. A posthumous jealousy, we will say.” What a curious choice of words: “posthumous jealousy.” What do you suppose Holmes meant by that?

Baby Ferguson had a “small, angry red pucker” on his throat. That is the hallmark of localized infection. Perhaps it was not dangerous but surely it was uncomfortable for the infant. Discomfort in an infant is usually accompanied by crying and similar behavior, but this child apparently was content, waving his dimpled fists about. My question is, why did Holmes examine the injury instead of asking Watson, the physician on the scene, to have a look at it? Was he afraid that Watson, with his personal knowledge of wounds, might have recognized the injury as one not made by human teeth and suggested the cause before Holmes was prepared to reveal it?

A parting shot: How did Watson come into possession of the letter that Holmes wrote to Morrison, Morrison and Dodd at the conclusion of his investigation?

Discover more about The Sussex Vampire and read the canon.

A Study in Scarlet – Hounds Summary

Ralph Edwards – Fri, 26 Aug 1994

  • What would indicate that an artery had been grazed?
  • What was in store for Watson at the end of his nine months?
  • Why all the blue flickering flames for only one student?
  • How could Holmes be sure that nothing else precipitated his re-agent?
  • Why did Holmes seize Watson instead of Stamford by the coat-sleeve?
  • What composed 97% of Holmes’s blood? (assume 1 liter = 30,000 drops)
  • Is there any evidence that the Sherlock Holmes test was ever used?
  • What were Watson’s vices when he was well?
  • Was agreeing to share quarters strange after so brief an acquaintance?
  • Was Watson correct that Holmes was not a difficult man to live with?
  • Did poor pen, ink, left-handedness, or carelessness blot Holmes’ hands?
  • Reconcile “no knowledge of philosophy” with philosophical instruments.
  • Did the magazine name the author?
  • How did Holmes munch silently on toast?
  • Why “bread and cheese” instead of “bread and butter”?
  • Did Holmes observe that Dr. Watson was of a medical type?
  • Should a young gentleman address a middle-aged retired marine as “my lad”?
  • Did “no reply” indicate that Holmes had decided to take the case?
  • Do business cards usually indicate the city, state, and country, but no street address?
  • What was Holmes’ experience with professional beauties?
  • How did Gregson and Lestrade travel to Lauriston Gardens?
  • Was the state of the hat, collar, and cuffs compatible with activity, weather, and Euston?
  • Does agitation remain showing on the face of the dead?
  • Is a Masonic device appropriate for a former Mormon?
  • Is plaster normally yellow?
  • Does a man with a nosebleed keep smoking a cigar?
  • Would a puddle on the garden walk be seen late at night?
  • Would Hope, steadying Drebber, have taken long strides?
  • When had Watson previously flattered Holmes on the score of his art?
  • Does Holmes ever give any other police officer a half-sovereign for providing information?
  • Relate the condition of drains to typhoid fever. Why not an enteric fever?
  • What “legal twist” might be discerned in four words of writing?
  • Was Hope fooled by the facsimile ring?
  • Was less than three weeks in London a reasonable time for Hope to track down Drebber?
  • When does a young girl become “of age”? What things would such a girl be too innocent to understand?
  • Why would a boy in the navy be costly?
  • Isn’t a ladder to the second (third in the U.S.) floor very long and heavy?
  • How could Lestrade know that Stangerson usually did all the paying?
  • Why no luggage, passports, toiletry, etc., but a useless telegram?
  • What events led to the Cleveland police sending a telegram regarding Jefferson Hope? How would they know Hope’s destination?
  • What happened to the pillbox on the sill when a man in a long coat climbed out?
  • Why is the path 1,500 miles in a territory that is 600 miles across?
  • How long does it take to die of hunger? of thirst?
  • What happened to brother Bob and his father?
  • Are desert nights suitable for unlighted walking?
  • Did women carry burdens during migrations to the West?
  • Were homespun garments common in 1847?
  • Were the Mormons all Anglo-Saxons?
  • Was there gold fever in California in 1859?
  • How distant were the Wahsatch Mountains?
  • Is Utah the Pacific slope?
  • Was Lucy’s hair golden or chestnut?
  • Must the bride consent in a Mormon wedding?
  • Why do two people need a roomy villa when the servants sleep in an outhouse?
  • If one can get half-way through the mountains in a night, how many days does it take to get the rest of the way?
  • Was the wedding band a suitable keepsake?
  • What happened to the eleven wives of Drebber and Stangerson?
  • How did Hope locate his two men?
  • Why did Hope emphasize Holmes being on his trail?
  • At what time of day was the gentleman house-hunting on the Brixton Road?
  • What does “firing across a handkerchief” mean?
  • Why did Hope leave the candle burning?
  • Could Holmes have smelt poison through all the alcohol Drebber consumed?
  • What is the background for a belief that pure chance will favor the righteous?
  • Hope was suspicious of Holmes’ advertisement. Why didn’t he suspect anything when asked to drive his cab to the same address mentioned in the advertisement?
  • Why would the Cleveland police respond to a telegram from an unknown Englishman asking about Drebber’s private affairs?
  • Did Holmes note two tracks entering and one leaving?
  • How far would an unattended horse travel?
  • Did Hope lead a useful life?
  • Should Hope have been hung if he had survived?
  • Is it pure coincidence that the superior mortals (Holmes, Ferrier, and Hope) were bachelors?

Chris Redmond – Fri, 17 Nov 1995

The original reader of this tale can have had no preconceptions about the conventions of a detective story or the behavior of a detective because no such thing was known. Is there evidence in the details of the story, and in Holmes’ proceedings, that he was in fact originally conceived of as a medical student or a doctor?

The characters in “The Country of the Saints” frequently refer to “the Lord” and sometimes venture to speak in God’s name. What do these chapters suggest that the author of the Sherlock Holmes stories thought — early in his adult life, at least — about organized religion and the value of religious belief? In the stories, Watson often seems to say little and writes even less of his own activities. Is this a man with self-esteem problems?

Steve Clarkson – Fri, 8 May 1998

As we are launched into another cycle of analysis and commentary, perhaps it would be well for us to take a step back and examine some of the overall aspects of this Adventure. A Study in Scarlet, like The Valley of Fear, relies to some extent upon flashback. Both Adventures have their roots in America, although they come to a culmination in England. In A Study in Scarlet, we make the transition from the rooms in Baker Street to the Great Alkali Plain without so much as a by-your-leave from Watson. Granted, it would have taxed Lestrade’s stenographic endurance to the utmost if this portion of the Adventure had been presented as a narrative confession by Jefferson Hope.

But what is the real purpose of this part of the story? After all, don’t we have all we really need to tie loose ends together in the confession of Jefferson Hope, which Watson quotes at the end of the story? Why is it that the flashback style is used in only two of the sixty Adventures (excluding Watson’s mnemonic flashback in WIST)? Why do both of these flashbacks take us to America, and not, for example, to Australia? Could it be that here we are seeing the Literary Agent’s known fascination with America and Americans, gratuitously superimposed over Watson’s own denouement?

In adding this information, is the Literary Agent strictly accurate in his portrayal of various events and aspects of life in America? As one example, consider his depiction of the Mormons, which would appear to perpetuate, some 43 years later, the rumors and misunderstandings about that religious sect which led to the murder of Joseph Smith in 1844 and the subsequent flight of Smith’s followers from Nauvoo, Illinois. I am confident that the Hounds will cross the trails of similar depictions of Americans and the American language, laws, and lifestyle.

For those of us who prefer to quarter the grounds of smaller coverts, I offer the following:

  • Since Jefferson Hope knew Watson’s address from the advertisement about the ring that Holmes placed in the agony column, and was cautious enough to send a friend in disguise to check things out, how was it that Hope freely, albeit truculently, came to the same address just a few days later when summoned by a street Arab?
  • For the medicos among us: Could the terrific loss of blood Hope sustained during his tussle with Holmes, Lestrade, and Watson have contributed to his demise that same evening? Or did the physical exertion aggravate his already perilous condition?
  • Why was Watson so reticent at first about asking Holmes what his occupation was? Didn’t he have a right to know where half the rent money was coming from? And wasn’t it customary for landladies to check references before letting rooms? (For all Mrs. Hudson knew, Holmes might have trashed his digs in Montague Street, and Watson has been characterized by some as a half-pay “bum” in earlier Hounds’ discussions on this Adventure.)
  • What was the significance, if any, of the signs and countersigns (“‘Nine to seven!’…’Seven to five!’”) used by the Avenging Angels?
  • In their display of braggadocio to John Ferrier when they came to the Ferrier homestead seeking Lucy Ferrier’s hand, both Enoch Drebber and Joseph Stangerson boasted of their wealth, either realized or impending. At that time, Stangerson stated that his prospective inheritance would surpass Drebber’s wealth. Yet Stangerson eventually accepted a rather menial position as Drebber’s secretary and factotum in later life. What might have happened to Stangerson’s once-rosy “prospects?”

Discover more about A Study in Scarlet and read the canon.